Posted on 11/27/2013 6:13:19 AM PST by NYer
Ping!
He gets it. Nuns can’t be priests any more than gays can be married. It’s just the way it is. The nuns should get over themselves.
I don’t see any reason why priests can’t be married, or woman cannot not be priests.
when jesus Christ set down these rules, he didn’t forsee the great strides in equality we would make in America in the 21st century.
I think that we should demand woman be priests, by force of law if necessary , and if Christ doesn’t like it, well, how will he like the equal opportunity commission slapping him with a big fat lawsuit? didn’t think so.
Troll. Boring troll.
for later
2. In the Catholic Church in the USA alone, even more of our ordained clergy are married. The number of married deacons (15,000) is even larger than the number of priests in the religious orders (14,000) ---Jesuits, Franciscans and so forth.
3. There is nothing in history that Jesus didn't foresee. You do know He's God, right?
Furthermore, the "great modern strides" argument is bogus. Every pagan civilization surrounding the early Church had priestesses, and goddesses as well. Every one of them. Only the Jews and Christians did not. The Christians and Jews were not conformists within the larger culture. They were knowingly, and intentionally, countercultural.
Your last paragraph is --- uh, wait (slaps forehead) --- did you just forget your /s/?
“I don’t see any reason why ...woman cannot not be priests.”
Jesus did. End of story.
“...jesus Christ ...didn’t forsee the great strides in equality we would make in America in the 21st century.”
Jesus didn’t foresee? He’s God. He foresaw plenty.
“I think that we should demand woman be priests, by force of law if necessary , and if Christ doesn’t like it, well, how will he like the equal opportunity commission slapping him with a big fat lawsuit? didn’t think so.”
Oh, you’re being sarcastic. Got it.
willywill, someone of your economic stature should start your own religion. I’d hate to see your considerable theological talents wasted here on FR, when you could be out preaching the willywill Gospel (and making a pretty penny out of it).
All interesting facts. What should be explored further (IMHO) is the history of celibacy. It should be noted that celibacy is more of a tradition....NOT a doctrine. There is nothing in the Gospels, or the Bible which insists upon priestly celibacy. Celibacy came about 1000 after the founding of the Church. The first 40 popes at least were married men. Celibacy was introduced in the Middle Ages to combat corruption within the Church. Many priests began treating Church property as their own personal property and were leaving it to their children to inherit it. It was thus decided to protect Church property that priests should not be allowed to marry and have their own families.
I think that was sarcasm.
You are off the plantation here. Or are you being sarcastic and forgot to mark it as such?
You are off the plantation here. Or are you being sarcastic and forgot to mark it as such?
and mine wasn’t????
Wait a minute here. You’re talking actual Church history and Bible facts?? We won’t have it. No sir. Not about celibacy we won’t.
Your earlier post screeching about the “Jooooos” and their fearsome power over the U.S. was more subtle than this mess.
Maybe you should go back to DU and tell them you’ll be better suited for trolling when you’ve grown up, and after you’ve learned basic spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. A lack of basic literacy makes you stand out like a sore thumb, completely apart from your clumsy posts.
The Church in the West had to wage a protracted struggle against secular power. Bishops and abbots owned estates, whose income constituted the main support of the Church, but as owners of land the realm, there were constantly pressured to become mere vassals to the king and way too enmeshed with the political nobility. (Look up “Investiture Controversy” and you will see that reforming popes struggled AGAINST this for centuries.)
If a bishop had sons and daughters, he’d be even more deeply caught up in dynastic marriage politics: marrying this daughter to that duke, and this son to that princess, and forming alliances with powerful families for all the political/economic/social benefits that would accrue.
Trying to secure the independence of bishops from the temporal Powers That Be was a huge job, it took a millennium to settle and it’s not what I’d call “settled” even yet. But, for many centuries in the history of the Church, marriages would have forced priests and, even more so, bishops and abbots, to become even more deeply enmeshed in securing titles of nobility, access to estates and lands, royal alliances and the rest of it for all their children.
The Church was trying to steer clear of that whole web of worldly entanglements. Celibacy --- the avoidance of ongoing dynastic interconnections --- became an honorable way to secure more political independence from temporal power, and hence more freedom to be “in this world but not of it.”
“Maybe you should go back to DU “
whats du?
All good points. The question for the Church today: Are the conditions you described applicable for present day considerations?
There is nothing in the Gospels, or the Bible which insists upon priestly celibacy.
____________________________________________________________
There is plenty in the Gospels regarding celibacy. Check our Corinthians 7: 32-35. There are other passages as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.